A councillor has spoken out about "misleading" opposition to cycle lanes which has seen "misinformation" spread turning people against plans for a major cycling infrastructure project.
Last week, 28 cycle lanes constituting the Wirral Core Active Travel Network (CATN) were given the go-ahead at a Wirral Council meeting that was disrupted by protesting locals; Labour, Green and Liberal Democrat councillors voting to move forward with the scheme, with 12 routes to be built over the next seven years and to be funded via Liverpool City Region Combined Authority grants, not directly from the council.
As with other active travel projects implemented across the United Kingdom, Wirral Council is confident implementing CATN [pictured below] will make the area "healthier, safer and more connected" and has been guided by data, information and Department for Transport guidance.
CATN was given the green light at a council 'Environment, Climate Emergency and Transport Committee' meeting last week, the meeting also seeing a protest from a group of around 80 anti-bike lane campaigners who described the plans as "ludicrous" and had to be urged not to be abusive and rude by the local authority.
Political opposition has come from the Conservatives, who have waged a long-standing resistance to the plans, having previously branded the new cycling scheme around Birkenhead as "a monumental waste of taxes", a "recipe for disaster", and bizarrely called the people advocating for the scheme "the Active Travel Taliban".
> "Such derogatory remarks have no place in a civilised society": Councillor slammed for branding cycling campaigners "the Active Travel Taliban" and for "spreading unwarranted misinformation" about bike lane scheme
A week on from the scheme's approval, Labour councillor Liz Grey has again questioned Conservative councillors' approach to opposing the active travel infrastructure. Arguing they had been "misleading in the extreme", Cllr Grey accused "naysayers" of having "spread rumours and misinformation that might alarm residents".
Cllr Grey chairs the committee that made the decision last week and, in quotes published today by the Wirral Globe, suggested that Tory councillor Ian Lewis in particular had "repeatedly pushed" a narrative "for years" of "cycle chaos", whipping up opposition and "telling people that they will lose parking spaces and be inconvenienced by cycle lanes".
She continued: "If he puts that much time and effort into telling people that they will lose parking spaces and be inconvenienced by cycle lanes, then many will believe him and his negativity, even if incorrect, will gain traction. The fact that so few people responded negatively elsewhere and in fact many of the routes had a majority in favour means that the claim that a majority of residents oppose the network is misleading in the extreme."
Cllr Grey believes Lewis has encouraged opposition in his Wallasey area, 44.5 per cent of the total responses to a council survey coming from there and all seven schemes in Wallasey facing significant opposition. However, further afield she pointed out that Liverpool City Region Combined Authority research showed over two thirds of Wirral residents want more and better cycle infrastructure.
"The biggest mistake we can make is to ignore the silent majority and back the aggressive, vocal minority especially when that minority represents a very narrow demographic," she continued.
"Children and young adults in particular represent those with the greatest stake in the future and those who pay the highest price long term if we make mistakes now and fail to build a decent future Wirral for them to inherit. I think most people fail to engage with consultations because we don't share our vision for the future very well.
"In the absence of a clear strategic vision, it is easier for the naysayers to spread rumours and misinformation that might alarm residents, for example telling people that ambulances will be held up or unable to access GP surgeries because of bollards when there are no plans for this. What is our vision? What are we trying to create? A cleaner, safer borough, with happier, healthier residents who can live, work and play without road danger and air pollution, two of the biggest killers in Merseyside."
Responding, Cllr Lewis championed the "94 per cent opposition" to the route through Liscard and Wallasey and suggested Cllr Grey is "clearly rattled" because plans "have not been welcomed with open arms by residents and businesses".
Cllr Grey concluded: "It is a fact that there are Conservatives who understand the importance of promoting active travel but it is a sad fact for us that none of them seem to be councillors here."
The back and forth is just the latest episode in the Wirral's long-running bike lane saga. In November, the local newspaper published a baffling anti-bike lane poem protesting the council's "new crazy scheme".
Earlier in 2024, Conservative leader Jeff Green faced criticism for branding those who support the scheme "the Active Travel Taliban". The Labour leader of Wirral Council hit back at the comments and accused his Tory counterpart of "spreading unwarranted misinformation" about the plans and argued that "such derogatory remarks have no place in a civilised society".
Ed Lamb, a Green Party councillor, said the Conservative representatives "are not serious about regeneration, health, climate, and we are allowed to ignore them".
Add new comment
9 comments
"Political opposition has come from the Conservatives, who have waged a long-standing resistance to the plans,....."
Keep digging lads, you'll disappear into your own holes before long.
Is there not a code of conduct for councillors?
Probably. But ... applied / enforced by whom? (See Private Eye's "Rotten Boroughs" page for evidence of how well that might work).
There is. But having seen in my professional life how it failed to hold councillors to account for some pretty awful things they said about children with special educational needs, I wouldn't hold out any hope in that direction. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv220q9r14no
https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/councillor-and-officer-development/...
Selflessness : Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
Integrity: Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
Objectivity: Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
Accountability: Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
Openness: Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for doing so.
Honesty:Holders of public office should be truthful.
Leadership: Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.
As a councillor myself, I try to stick to these, but I'm afraid the same cannot be said for the tories and PIGs (Progressive Independent Group).
As an aside, I may have been responsible in some small way for the Code of Conduct, having had my picture on the front page of the local rag thirty years ago, showing the email that my local councillor had accidentally copied me in to, which was defamatory and wrong.
They're right that they need a network. Starting with a central region is also a good idea - but they need that whole central region done in their "short" or at least "short to medium" term timescale. That's how Seville managed to do it.
Sufficient density is important - so "main routes" at under 1km intervals (ideally half that or less) and with fairly free flow. (See Seville's map, for comparison - though this is now after almost 2 decades).
They need to be clear that these need sufficient protection, must be continuous (e.g. and not turn into a bus lane, or "shared use" path or give up at side streets and driveways) and junctions must be safe and reasonably convenient.
More cycle parking will likely be needed. But the critical change will be to tackle the speed and volume of traffic away from the main routes (so people feel safe off the cycle infra too). And the space allocated - take from driving to give to cycling / walking.
That's the miminum - really. Otherwise this will be further proof that in the UK "it doesn't work" and "nobody cycles".
There's a PhD in there somewhere if someone can come up with a coherent explanation of just why so many Tories hate the thought of anyone cycling *so much* - I mean they do, viscerally, and I don't understand it!
Because the whole foundation of Tory ideology is the pursuit of wealth and material goods as the ultimate human good and measure of human worth and happiness. For most people the most ostentatious indicator of wealth is their car and they are prepared to put themselves in massive debt to have one bigger and shinier and with a more prestigious name on the boot than their neighbours. Then along come cyclists who pay a fraction of the price for their conveyances but in an urban environment at least often get where they're going faster, have more fun doing it and get healthier all for just about nothing, whilst those who have bought the big cars sit in jams getting more and more frustrated and inhaling their own fumes and paying an absolute fortune for the privilege. Faced with this, your Tory materialist can either admit their chosen path might be pretty stupid or hate the people who are demonstrating that this is the case. As J.K.Galbraith famously wrote, "In the choice between changing one's mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.” The "proof" needed to stop a Tory motorist changing their mind is to insist that the motorcar is essential and represents freedom and liberation for all and that cyclists are a bunch of antisocial, dangerous, peculiarly dressed scrounging losers who are a blight on society.
Luckily the Labour lot understand all the above, and aren't just pursuing "growth" because of the trickle down effect (a rising tide floats all boats). Or perhaps because frankly they don't see any alternative to spinning the treadmill faster to keep up with others either *. Oh, wait...
Risking "no true Scotsman" perhaps the Labour party that gets elected is on average the group that's less hot on some of the "working class" stuff (or finds it can and has to tone it down a bit)? Perhaps substitute "working people" and go along with the prevailing economic ideas? (Which AFAIK all major UK parties essentially do now - following Truss even the "small state" disruptors have probably had a reminder not to go too wild). That should do it.
Does lots political fighting over apparently "open goal" ideas come about because that is in fact how the system is designed - that gives it its stability? So perhaps politicians simply have to find an angle (even if attacking kittens) to get attention / support and ultimately power?
Of course many are a bit nutty about some things, because humans. And possibly ideas or ways of thinking rarely come in isolation - they have baggage / other ideas they're incompatible with?
* Not quite the same but I liked Tim Hunkin's state of the nation cartoon in this style.